If you have forgotten your password or want to change your username please DO NOT create a second account, please use the password reset facility instead.
Or if the old account and/or email is inoperative; or you want to change your username; please use the Contact Us page. Duplicate accounts are not allowed. Thanks!

Nikon 10-24 f3.5-4.5 versus Tamron 10-24 f3.5-4.5. What to buy?

Hi Guys, I'm in a bit of a pickle at the moment. I'm heading to Europe in a couple of months and I'm looking for an ultra-wide angle lens for my D7000 to be used for landscape photography.

After a great deal of reading, the two top choices appear to be either the Nikon 10-24 and the Tamron 10-24. DP Review gives the Tamron a reasonable write up, but with the caveat that corners are a little soft and and perhaps the contrast isnt as good as it possibly could be. They dont have a review for the Nikon lens, but Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan seem to think that the Nikon edges out all other lenses when it comes to sharpness, contrast and brightness.

The Nikon at this point appears to be the obvious choice, until it comes to the price. Grey market prices for the Nikon are ~$900 compared to the Tamron at ~$500. Thats quite the difference. So my question to anyone who found themselves in my situation and has then come to own either of these lenses; is the Nikon worth the extra money, or is the quality of the Tamron adequite on a 16mp sensor because the images are going to be sharpened with contrast and vibrance added where needed in post processing anyway?

I really dont want to have to buy glass twice, so is the Nikon really worth almost double the price of the Tamron?

Head over to Photozone and do a some more reading and pickle yourself a little more I reckon.

I would recommend looking at the two versions of the Sigma 10-20 currently available, the Sigma 12-24 and the Tokina 11-16 in preference to either the Tamron or Nikon based on better image quality against the Tamron and better bang for your buck against the Nikon offerings.

Andrew

Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.

I've got the nikon and it's great. I picked it up about 9 months ago and I've found it to be as the write-ups say it was. I got it grey for about 850 I think.
The sigma 8-16 had just come out, but I find the 24mm end very useful as well so I'm happy with the nikon over that lens or the tokina. The tamron feels a lot cheaper and the one I looked at had a fair amount of wobble to it.
There is quite a bit of difference between 10 and 12 mm which was Why I didn't getthe tokina 12-24.
Some people here are getting some fine results from the 10-20 sigma and if I'd seen those before I bought my nikon I might have bought that and saved a little bit if money. I've had one other sigma which was a 70-210 f2.8 which was rubbish, so I've been a little stumped by Third party lens so decided to stay nikon and have been very happy with it.
The corners of can get pretty average if the camera is tilted and you are very close to something and hand holding. It seems like The relative speed of something moving at the edges of the frame is much quicker than in the centre so it can exagerate any camera movement, but that happens with any uwa. Otherwise if the camera is on a tripod and reasonably vertical then it's great.

I have the Nikkor 10-24 on a D7000 and its great. I've never used any other UWAs, but I had a similar dilemma when choosing a macro lens, Tamron 90mm vs Nikkor 105mm. I went with the Tamron at around half the price but If I had to choose again I'd pay the extra for the Nikkor. The Tamron is a good lens for the money, but the build quality isn't close to a Nikkor, it just feels cheap and plasticy. AF is extremely slow and it tends to hunt a lot, IQ is good but not as good as the Nikkor. I'm assuming most of this would apply to the 10-24 lens as well. Can you try one out in store?

The Sigmas might be worth a look too, especially the 8-16. There is a big difference between 8 and 10mm.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I've had a look at the Sigma, Tamron and Nikkor in store today and it's quite apparent that the Nikkor has the better build quality and marginally better optics. I think I'll just have to wait a little longer and save the additional 40% to buy this lens rather than picking up the Sigma or Tamron which may leave me feeling a little regretful after the sting of the Nikkor's price has lessened.

God, with the investment I'm making in DX glass, I can only hope that I dont have an epiphany and decide to shoot FX in the next couple of years..